I guess I am asking more about the era of reconstruction as well (1860-1877...) We are having somewhat of a debate in our history class and our teacher decided to go ahead and make it a fun, debate day tomorrow. I'm not sure if it is....basically, the book said that constitutional and social developments of this era (1860-1877) amounted to a revolution. I don't think the era was a revolution socially, because African Americans were still under harsh conditions, and I'm not sure if it was politically--because the same people still held the power, however... the constitution did change...Correct me if I'm wrong on any of my info or let me know in which direction I should be leaning on this!? Thanks for the info, I appreciate it!
2007-02-22 10:21:55 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Technically; Yes, it was a revolution. It is even referred to in some books as The Second American Revolution. A revolution is when a group rises up against the established government and polices. In this case,They (the South) lost. However, it was still a revolution.
2007-02-22 15:06:55 · answer #1 · answered by rabbitmedic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, historians have credited Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party for the social revolution that was fought over in the Civil War. James M. McPherson does so in his book 'Battle Cry of Freedom'. Revolutions take time and do NOT instantly improve the living conditions of the people. Especially if it is a revolution from the top down - vs. a revolution from the bottom up. I would also say politics, especially the role and power of the Federal government and military, changed greatly too. Good luck with your debate.
2007-02-22 20:38:48 · answer #2 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. a revolutio is when the citizens or a group of peolpe uprise against their leader or goverment. The civil war was caused by the south decideing to leave the US.
2007-02-22 18:39:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋